Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012?

Well, hasn't 2012 gone by quickly? We're nearly at the end of another year, and 2012 was one of the busiest that we can remember, as camera manufacturers regained some momentum after the economic downturn and various natural disasters. This year saw a lot of innovation and movement at the top of the ranges of biggest camera manufacturers, making it a fantastic year for photo enthusiasts and reviewers alike (even if we are completely exhausted at this point). So at the end of an incredibly busy year we want to know which cameras stood out for you.

Because there were so many products released this year, we've made a fairly long shortlist of 14 models, spanning everything from enthusiast compacts to high-end DSLRs, following lengthy arguments discussions within the dpreview office. We made this selection based on cameras that we've had time to use extensively, and that we really like. If you think we've missed a camera off that's seriously deserving of the title, leave a (polite) comment and we'll add it to the total. No fanboyism please, it's been a long year. And remember that you can only vote once.

Comments

As others have mentioned, these kinds of "best-of" polls are fairly pointless, except, maybe to generate comments on a Web site (1,513 as of now).

"Best" for what? is one obvious question some commenters have raised. How does one compare different types of camera designed for different uses?

And who of the people that "voted" in the "poll" have used more than a handful of the cameras listed—let alone all of them? How can anyone possibly make comparative judgements without having at least some experience with the cameras?

The only real use for these lists, i'd say, is that they help point people in the market toward some starting points for cameras they might want to consider.

This line quoted from above summarizes the polls purpose I think though."So at the end of an incredibly busy year we want to know which cameras stood out for you."You clearly don't have to own one of the cameras to answer that question.For example my brother voted (for the OM-D EM-5) and owns none of the cameras listed, he has an older Leica digital P&S. The camera stood out to him for many of the reasons already mentioned all over the web by reviewers, magazines and users. The same way we all develop opinions on many things.I hope this cast's some perspective on your questions.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 is really a great camera. It only costs $999. It sports the popular mirrorless technology that allows for a light and compact body. More than that, however, the OM-D E-M5 is an outstanding camera that provides you with tools like an electronic eye-level viewfinder, a 120fps refresh rate, a tilting 3.0" OLED touchscreen monitor, 16Mp of resolution, and - of course - an ever-expanding array of compatible lens options. All these factors boil down to a camera that's easier to transport than the average DSLR, yet puts multiple creative choices, and numerous other high-end features and functions, at your disposal.

Like it or not I think this is a sign of where things will head eventually. Compact, not crazy compact but compact enough... high performing (perhaps not the highest performing) but certainly good enough for largish quality prints. I voted for the E-M5 (I have one and couldn't be more pleased with it) the other very impressive camera at least from looking at reviews and specs is the A99, at least for me. I think Sony have done their homework there.

I don't really know if this question has any sense..? Of course there will be a winner among the different cameras of this list. But I think, like many other users, that the different uses and domains of photography where the proposed cameras could play are in fact so different that a clear answer isn't relevant. "The best camera" is the one suited to YOUR PERSONAL photographic use and isn't probably the one choosen by your neigbour ? How to compare, let's say just as an example, a Panasonic Lumix with a Canon 5D MkIII ? Same users and same use (except they both just take pictures) ? I don't think so..

Another difficulty to make a fair choice will be : "who know all these cameras, enough to make a honnest choice..?". Sorry, but I haven't used more than 3 cameras from this list and I only know one good enough, the mine.

What's most interesting is not which brand polled the highest, or what constitutes the 'best' - the poll would have been more appropriately titled: what's the most significant camera of 2012.

It's that a new generation mirrorless system polled this high, on what is an enthusiast's site. DPR tends to be a bellweather for advanced amateur opinions. If anything, this poll demonstrates that there is strong interest on the part of advanced amateurs in a small, capable system, if the body and lenses aren't entry level grade, and the resulting images aren't also entry level grade.

So I'll raise a glass to the little runt of a camera, that exceeded all expectations.

Oly TG-1: great "tough" camera that resists drops, heat-cold, and submersion to 40', while also delivering decent pics and video.Panny FX200: super zoom with constant F/2.8 aperture.Sony NEX6: a thrifty version of the NEX7, plus new features.Canon T4i: bargain DSLR with best menu scheme.Nikon V2: lots of high-end features in a small package, and certainly outsell the FF Nikon stuff.Panny LX7: F/1.4 aperture, 1280x720 120fps video, time-lapse (stuff the other compacts lack), plus best manual control dials, wheels, and knobs, all at a low price.

The OM-D EM5 appears to have won, fair and square, drawing votes of middle-aged folks who may not even own or use it, but are nostalgic for the OM-D look. Those who pay the high price for the body (enough to buy a PEN kit plus a nice lens) become true believers by force, even if they secretly loathe the menu system.

"The OM-D EM5 appears to have won, fair and square, drawing votes of middle-aged folks who may not even own or use it, but are nostalgic for the OM-D look."

WTF? I'm a retired Director of Photography with 4 international Gold Medals and numerous domestic awards. I may be middle-aged, but I absolutely NEVER CONSIDERED buying an OM-D E-M5 because of its "retro looks". I did my research, looking at side-by-side comparisons here at DP Review, at Imaging Resource and every other international site I could find. I carefully considered what each system would cost with the lenses that I wanted, and looked at the quality of each system's IQ vs cost and weight/bulk. The E-M5 came out on top. If anything, the "retro look" was a turn-off for me. Price/performance means everything, what the camera looks like means absolutely NOTHING.

The T4i finished 11th (shy of "top ten" status), with only 1.8% of the votes. The D5200, a close contender feature-wise, which often markets with two lenses for about the same price, did not rank either, though it is a great package. The OM-D EM-5 is a nice camera, but did not win the 1/4 market share that the vote tally suggests. Oly shareholders would gladly trade places with Samsung's.

All these comments on "best brand" based on this poll are nonsense, if DPR had wanted such a result they would have posed the question along with all the models of each respective brand. To claim to make such a judgement based on the narrow field of models presented is irrelevant.

It appears the OM-D has won in this poll as best camera of 2012 fair and square and deserves the spotlight. Good for Olympus, a brand with much history that rose from the ashes on the coat tails of this model over the past year. Quite a story in and of itself.

What matters most to me is that the quality of these cameras shows that it's a great time to be a consumer. With cameras like the D800, OM-D and RX1 covering the various ranges of camera types, we've got a D-SLR that can provide medium format quality, a mirrorless that performs as well as most APS-Cs, and a compact that redefines what it means to be a compact camera.

Regardless of which camera "won" the poll, we're the real winners here.

Sort of a silly question when I think about it. Best for what? For astronomy -- probably the EOS 60Da (not counting aftermarket mods). For video -- probably one of the Panny GH cameras. For sports -- ... . Etc.

I am rather disappointed in Canon, they had only two cameras worthy of being on the list, and of those two only one had any votes to speak of. Over the last couple of years I have been frustrated in their innovation and product refresh rate. In no way am I trying to disparage the Canon product line as it still has a very worthy line of products, but it just seems to me they are slowly slipping behind the competition. IMHO they need to pick up the pace with innovation and start leading the pack instead of following it.

Canon seems to be playing catch up ever since Nikon introduced D3 & D700 and nikon has been aggressive with 'modernising' their lens line-up which probably swoon a lot of people over. As for headline technology, I think Fuji (dual ofv and evf, x-trans sensor), Sony (slt, focus peaking, 1" sensor), Olympus (5 axis IS, ultra fast touch focus and snap)and even Sigma (merrills) has something new or different to offer. In comparison, Canon's mirrorless seems such a half-hearted move and the G1X no doubt is interesting but the focusing speed sorta let it down and they once again remove the flip twist screen on the G15!

Canon listened several requests asked by the users: a better AF and keep and low noise in high isos. Fuji and Olympus have shown with the X Pro 1,the E1 and the EM 5 a high level of connection with a lot of photographers. I think -it`s just my opinion- Nikon -with an excellent camera- has given attention a smaller amount of real needs.

So because Fuji and Oly let to the photographer (pro and others) a greater freedom and a better CONNECTION with Photography they deserve the highger considerations in this poll.

I have also voted for the OM-D, however what this poll or perhaps the 2012 market shows how important Sony became!

If we look the major/best camera releases this year (5DMII, X-Pro1, N D800/E, OMD, Pan GH3, K-30, RX1, RX100, A99 and NEX6 (would swop this with A57) and perhaps Leica MM), from these 11 cameras 7 have Sony sensors. Not only that, but Sony is represented by 4 cameras of their own. They have been by far the most innovative this year.

And if I look at the near future (2013), I predict a similar year for Sony. Whilst I can't really see anything really revolutionary coming out from Nikon or Canon (we will probably get an updated version of the same old recipe: i.e.D800 or D5MIII). Hopefully I'm wrong in this.

I'm not a brand follower. I'm interested in what's best/suits me most from the market. For this reason, I would love to see, something awesome from each one of these companies.

I'd add the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 to the list. I've gotten superb results from it that rivals my OM-D and RX100 in quality when results are blown up to 13x19" or shown on a 28" Apple Monitor; and it proved more versatile than the OM-D which I have equipped with 2 zooms and the 14mm, 25mm and 75mm Lumix lenses. Couple it with the RX100 for a 2 camera, 2 pound (total) combo. Despite theoretical problems with the small sensor, it functions extremely well in practice and the 2.8 aperture from 25mm-600mm is unexcelled by any 2012 camera regardless of price. Add weather-proofing and it would be virtually perfect.My votes would go for the FZ200, the RX100 and the OM-D in their respective classes.

@Timmbits. To keep things accurate, the FZ200 has a 25-600 constant F2.8 aperture. The aperture does not change as you zoom. Something no other camera on the consumer market has, and I believe this is what TheDigitalCruiser was referring to. The Fuji SX-1 while a nice and capable camera has a 24-624 zoom that is F2.8 at wide angle but stops down to F5.6 at its longest focal length. So that factor of the FZ200 stands alone in design and excellence among all super-zoom cameras.

Now since no "super-zooms" are in the list above, perhaps DPReview could do a poll on super-zoom cameras as well, as they are a unique, popular and competitive class of their own.

I fully support David's conclusion. I wish only that the FZ200 had some real competition from the likes of Canon, even with a less accomplished lens, but with a "quieter" sensor (less noisy, that is) and an equally well-rounded camera. The joy I'd have would be taking the time and scrutiny to decide!

I've been enjoying watching the arguably two best cameras of 2012 in their classes duking it out for top honors. And I'm impressed the D800 is holding its own given its higher price ($2,800 vs. $1000) and consequent smaller audience. Both it and the E-M5 are deserving of top honors this year.

For me it comes down to which camera I'm more likely to have with me 90% of the time. The E-M5's much lighter weight (1 pound vs. 2 pounds for the D800) and smaller size (4.8 x 3.5 x 1.69" vs. 5.75 x 4.84 x 3.23") make it the clear leader here.

That it retains full-features many are accustomed to in DSLR's and adds excellent IQ , 5-axis IBIS, full live-view shooting capabilities and weather-sealing, all of these qualities make it perhaps the perfect take-anywhere camera.

Is it a better camera than the D-800? No. But is it a high quality affordable camera with very few meaningful compromises that I can always have along with me? Yes. And that's why my vote lands in its court.

My personal decision came down to OM-D vs. NEX-6 as I was looking for a pocketable solution that maximizes picture quality and minimizes bulk. I opted for the NEX-6. I know it didn't even make the short list here and I know the arguments for the OM-D. But after learning first hand what the NEX-6 can do, I am convinced it was the right choice for me. Focus peaking with MF lenses works like a charm, it has enough customizable buttons, dials and screens to not have to deal with the menu (which isn't all that bad after all) and you can use your cellphone to share files instantly via email/text/Instagram or any other app you can think of. That's not to mention its video capabilities or the open system that allows you to use virtually any lens (legacy or otherwise) via adapter. No other camera I know of shows this kind of versatility. Here's to hoping Sony/Zeiss will put their money where their mouth is and come out with enough quality (PDAF capable) lenses to make this a quality system.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but their marketing in Asia has been pretty successful. And while I don't have any sales data, I've seen a 50/35/15 split of PEN/NEX/Other in terms of MILC usage around Asia.

Right now I have over $10,000 in DSLR cameras and lenses sitting collecting dust. The reason is the Olympus OM-D.

For years I've been muttering to myself why can't anybody make a digital equivalent of 35mm SLRs? While digital imaging had caught up with (and in many ways surpassed) the quality of 35mm film, high quality DSLRs were huge and heavy compared to their old film counterparts, especially when a large aperture lens was fitted. As a result, digital photography forced a choice between cumbersome high end cameras and smaller, more portable cameras that were far inferior imaging devices--until this year. When Olympus unveiled the OM-D photographers finally had a solid, water tight, camera system which could produce high quality images that one could easily carry around all day.

I've been shooting with the OM-D for 7 months now; it has been transformative. Olympus has simply put a very serious camera in our hands which we can take everywhere--I know, because I do.

I agree that this is a large part of the attraction of the OM-D. A lot of us grew up with the 35 mm SLRs of the 1970s like the Nikon FM, Canon A, Olympus OM and others. The OM-D is a return to this form factor and it's making me fall in love with photography again.

This isn't just nostalgia talking. I think a lot of people don't appreciate how small this system is. It's tiny. It really is. And it makes a huge difference compared to normal DSLRs and glass. And yet, we still get proper controls, an excellent SLR-style viewfinder, innovative features, solid build, and an image quality that's very competitive compared to most current APS-format offerings.

Nobody is claiming that this camera can produce the same images as a Leica S, but a camera is a complicated machine and photography can't be reduced to high ISO performance or how many frames per second it is capable of. All in all, the OM-D gives you the flexibility of a proper system camera, but in a small and attractive package.

I support the introduction of the Panasonic FZ200 for the super zoom class. The DPR review concluded "Panasonic has done almost everything right [...], producing a super zoom with a no-compromises lens. It performs very well, takes photos that are comparable (or better) than other super zooms, and has a top-notch movie mode. With a few refinements [...], it would be darn close to perfect."And the score was 80%. I see no close competitor.

The only problem with the FZ200 is that it's using a tiny 1/2.33 sensor, which is commonly found in a budget compact camera. Remember, all reviews are relative to cameras within the same class, so "darn close to perfect" doesn't mean it's better than any camera listed here.

Of course, the FZ200's sensor cannot compete with a Canon 650D in terms of noise or low light performance, neither can a zoom lens compete with a single lens in clarity or background blur. However, compact super-zooms have a use of their own. When a friend using a DSLR saw a chamois on a distant slope during a mountain-hiking trip, by the time he changed the lens, the "subject" had already walked away. The types of cameras used by many and with reasonable photographic performance should have a representative in any "Best of" list.

My issues with the FZ200 and many of its ilk come down to small sensor, large/heavy body and DSLR price. Eons ago when I had my first digital cam, an FZ3 superzoom, it was small and very light in weight which created much of its appeal. Not so any longer. The Olympus SZ-31 MR iHS comes much closer to what I'd want in a superzoom, having a 25-600mm equivalent range in an 8 ounce body that's smaller than many compacts at 4.17 x 2.72 x 1.57" and sells for $300. Downsides? Small sensor, lack of manual controls, no Raw, no control over noise settings and an f3-6.9 lens. But intriguing in its potential if properly developed to this DSLR and mirrorless camera owner as a take along just for fun camera.

ALL cameras are compromises, and their utility comes from their use. Think you are walking hand-in-hand with your girlfriend and wish to capture her smile, that very instant. If you have slipped into your pocket an LX7, you could do it. ...If you have slipped into your pocket a Canon EOS 5D Mark III with a Sigma 35 mm F1.4 DG HSM lens, then you have a problem. Curiously enough, you have a problem even if the sensor is better. In this case, the compromise is in size and weight. I agree that all the cameras in the list produce clearer pictures, and that the FZ 200 is not perfect. Still, for me and for a significant number of users, this is the camera that serves best. This is why I maintain that a camera in any category, that provides better-than-average results and is a well-rounded product, should be represented in this list.

Having owned a Nikon D100, D70, D300s, D5100, D700 and also a Canon 30D, 5D, 450D, plus using a Nikon D7000 and D200 daily at work, I now own for my private work a Nikon D600 and an Olympus OM-D EM-5. I have also used my father's Nikon D800. So I at least have experience with a few cameras and 3 out of the 4 leading the poll. Which is the best of the above though....difficult as they are all exceptional cameras really. At the moment I am using my OM-D as much as I can because it is such a great all-rounder (apart from tracking moving subjects). The Oly OM-D gets another vote here.

Fuji probably wouldn't have gone that route if not for m 4/3's. I don't see how the D800E has changed the direction of anything except more MP and high prices. It's not like it does a whole lot of things better than other cameras that are already on the market, as well as larger formats. The RX1? I may be in the minority here but I do not see the point of spending nearly $3000 on a fixed lens camera. Ever. Merely reaching potential? 23.5% pf voters don't agree with you.

As desirable as Fujifilm X-Pro 1 is, I don't see it changing direction of the industry at all, they're more like jumping on the mirrorless bandwagon type and trying to carve out a niche for themselves by charging leica like prices. I love fuji colours but not so much their operation but I'll love to own one too. As for RX1, I'm pretty sure though its a technological breakthrough, it won't be a commercial success so it may end up like the fate of Panasonic L1 or LC1 and for D800E it's pretty much what the industry has been doing all along, more and more MP...

"The Olympus OM-D is merely m4/3 finally reaching its potential." The new Windows is Windows finally reaching its potential. The new Mac OS is Mac finally reaching its potential. If had a dollar for every time ....

And the amazing thing is that until the new OS/Windows/camera came out, there was never anything wrong with the previous one ... ;)

And in the case of M4/3s it has "ALREADY" been eclipsing DSLRs for years now if we believe the converts.

"And in the case of M4/3s it has "ALREADY" been eclipsing DSLRs for years now if we believe the converts." For their needs, yes it did so. For others, the OMD with its IQ was the breaking point to get rid of the APS-c AND FF DSLRs. OMD was what was needed to convince those people.

Jorginho, you are JOKING, right? the MFT consortium stated they will never go beyond 16MP due to size limitations and IQ goals. APS-C from Samsung and Sony now have mirrorless models just as small as any MFT, and now, with higher resolutions, better IQ, and better DR. So, if anything, MFT is going DOWNmarket, into enthusiasts fixed lens (the space held by all those 1/1.17" and the RX100). More compact APS-C cameras will replace MFT soon as they make gains in the mirrorless category. Full frame is starting to appear where it hasn't before (RX1), which will push into the APS-C space. In short, everything is getting better. MFT was a big miscalculation, as was the Nikon-1. They won't replace anything, except for smaller sensors.

You sound like you know what you're talking about. Is it true that APS-C mirrorless cameras are taking market away from m43? I was under the impression that many people don't care much for the handling or lens selection of the Sony line, for example, and that sales have not been that strong. If the APS-C mirrorless cameras aren't currently beating back m43 in the mirrorless market, what makes you think that they will in the future? It's not like APS-C mirrorless cameras came out last month or anything. People have had a couple of years to look at them.

Personally, I don't see any need for image files over 16 megapixels, ever. I rarely if ever print over 13x19 inches. In fact, I often downscale the images from my GH2 as soon as they get on my computer. They're too big. There is a sidewalk exhibition of prints in my city right now, 40x60 and larger, and some of them were obviously taken on small-sensor compacts. They look great. The content is good, that's why.

Actually Olympus said there was 'no need' to go past 12mp.This means that they considered 12mp sufficient for most of their customers. The fact that they are dependent on other sensor manufacturer's means that their megapixels will rise / has risen in line with the industry.As for quality, I guarantee that nobody would be able to tell the difference in quality in actual photographs taken with the leading APS-C and M43 sensors, You only have to see the arguments on these forums where people minutely examine test charts in order to discern some differences in order to prove that their brand is best

i started with Nikon D50, than D200, i was using is with 18-200mm and than 24-85mm f2.8-4 af-d. After that i tried pentax k10 with Sigma 17-70mm (sharp lens indeed), but never satisfied. I switched to Canon and i bought 5D with 24-105mm. i try to use it for 1 year but it was so bulk and it didn't deserve the money that i spent. I sold everything i have regarding the camera.i was searching small but powerful SLR type camera. About 2 years ago, i bought Olympus PL1 after i completed my searching. I knew that it would be fine for me, i was so happy with it. The outputs were so sharp and color was great. Only i didnt like about ISO quality. I tried Oly P3 for 4 months, it was ok and lots of improvements on it, specially comparing PL1. ISO level was poor than i expected.Finally i have OM-D body with Summilux 25mm f1.4. I am totally satisfied. I am back on the streets now.

At $2800, more like a tombstone in the marketplace. Intriguing camera, but without a Leica label on it, my guess is it won't generate many sales, being too limited. Fuji got away with it in the X100 at $1200, but tripling this price for a fixed lens camera just because it has a FF sensor? Don't see it going too far.

If I could afford it, I would buy it. Some can. Don't think Sony didn't do their market research on this before design, price, and launch. My "poor man's RX1" is a Samsung NX1000 with a 30mm F2 lens, and it is quite nice to have something, like in the old days of 35mm film cameras, you just carried one lens for casual photography.

The 3200 is an excellent choice for many people. However, if you want to use it with high quality lenses, your system will no longer be small & lightweight. Nikon professional Thom Hogan has replaced his D7000 with an E-M5 when he wants a small and light setup.

It is bog, certainly with some lenses compared to the OMD. We are talking 2-3 times the weight easliy. D3200 btw is not weathersealed, does not have IBIS (all lenses are stablised), does not have a large VF. All in all you can better compare it to a G5. And that one still has better video easily. So there are pro's and cons to those systems. Whatever suits you..buy that!

James look in raw, not jpg. As to the rest,ofcourse in most form and function the oly is superior as a small camera, but nothing earth shattering. And the 3200 will far out sell oly. I do have to praise them for finally outsourcing a decent sensor. The ability to use nikon lens outweighs all the other points-for me. YMMV.

I suspect the Nikon D800/E may well be the better camera overall. I don't know and don't really care. I went out on a night shoot with a pro who used the 800 and, in my lowly opinion, I was more than pleased with how my images compared!

I am using the OM-D E-M5 camera and having so much fun.

For what I paid for the OM-D, grip, and top lenses it is about what the Nikon 800 body alone costs! (For near comparable results as far as I'm concerned)

"Lemming"? Do you really want to be the guy who needs to bash the opinion of others to support your own views?

I use a D700 (and an E-PL1, an Ixus and a Panasonic TZ) but I voted for the OM-D because its innovations changed the way M4/3 is perceived. Both it and the E-PL5 offer IQ and performance that rivals APS-C D-SLRs for a large segment of the market.

It all boils down to which camera meets your requirements best. I use full frame whenever I want very shallow DOF, I use my E-PL1 when I want to travel light, and I keep my Ixus or Panasonic in my bag the rest of the time to capture snaps. It's never a matter of which camera is the best, but rather which camera is best for what I need to do.

I guess you are making a good case for APS-C mirrorless then. If MFT is good enough for a discerning FF user, than APS-C will be more than good enough. I was using a NX1000 and just purchased a NX20, and the more I read, the more I am happy with my decision.

RJM, I too, am a former Nikon film user gone digital, currently using a Pentax K-5, but seeking a smaller travel kit such as the OM-D and the superb Oly primes 12, 45, 60 macro, and 75, lenses which are much smaller, lighter than any "comparable" Nikkors, while maintaining super-high quality! Kudos to Olympus for the OM-D System! Regarding the poster who said that "m4/3 was a miscalculation", how can high quality AND portability be a bad thing?

@ Timmbits: You are obviously focusing on sensor size as your main beef against m4/3. To a certain extent, you are correct. But m4/3 is now "good enough". And you have not touched on the system lenses. Pound for pound, the best m4/3 lenses are just as good as, if not better than, their FF/APSC counterparts. And all in a smaller, lighter package. It's all about compromises. And for many people, the E-M5 and m4/3 have finally become good enough that they no longer need to worry about equipment but just go out and take photos. YMMV.

People take this type of thing so seriously you wonder how old they really are. It's a simple poll. Obviously people will pick a camera they have experience with as only a few have heels all of the cameras included in the poll.

It's funny watching people argue over AF and IQ when in the end no gear is perfect as each person has different needs, hence why many own several bodies.

History repeating: the Tiger I (or II) had a huge 88 mm gun (like the sensor on the D800) but was a sluggish and non-reliable (mechanichally) piece of machinery. It was devastating however, but only in open field and in perfect conditions. The Pershing tank was a very good all-rounder (like the Canon 5D Mk III), but even if it was reliable, relatively quick and had a powerful gun it was perceived as "inferior" to the Tiger, and arived very late. And, in the end, the T-34 (OM-D) was the one that made the difference. Ha-haaaa... Cheers! :)

I see the OM-D as Sherman rather than the T-34. Have you seen the build quality of a T-34, rough to say the least (very effective tank though). The Sherman was much better engineered and built. It was inferior to the German Tiger and Panther tanks in almost every way but when used with the right tactics won the day.

What I would like to see is the OM-D equivalent of a Sherman Firefly. This was a British modification of a Sherman which had a huge 17" antitank gun crammed into it. It was a superb Tiger killer but not much good at other tank duties.

Take an OM-D, fit an oversized high resolution sensor with a matching fixed fast lens. It could "out gun" the D800 but would be much less versatile than a normal OM-D. Call it the OM-D Firefly

Which is why they weren't used one on one. Ignoring how a tank (or camera) is used when determining which is best is poor methodology.

With respect to WWII tanks the outcome is known. The German Tiger and Panther tank force was bested by the Allied Sherman & T-34 tanks.

The tank analogy is of course a false analogy as the OM-D and D800 are not in conflict, except perhaps in this poll. They represent alternative approaches to photography but neither of them precludes the existence nor devalues the worth of the other.

For me and the way I use a camera, the OM-D is better than the D800 or a PhaseOne P65+ despite having the worst image quality of the three.

@illy: well, well, then in your opinion the biggest CORPORATION with photography as main business is (pick one from Canon, Nikon, Olympus)? Oh dear, Canon is an easy winner. "Bombing" everyone else with their production facilities, R&D etc. So, "poor factual evidence"? Cheers! :) P.S.: yes, it took 5 Shermans to take out a single Tiger, but there were exceptions - a) if the Sherman was the British modified Firefly with the 17pdr gun, ask Wittman what happened with his Tiger...; b) playing "hide & seek" in Normandy, the Shermans were able to outmaneuver the Tiger and bang, hit them from the back! c) there were other examples as well... But I will get back to my T-34 example - in Kursk, the Tigers were no match for the armada of T-34s... And more, just for the sake of "factual evidence": IS-2, ISU 122 & even ISU-152 were also operational... Not sure if you have seen one of these "lifesize". Hope we will see one camera equivalent in 2013! :) :) :)

you should should see the Jagdtiger in real life, it's big and scary, no wonder they called the Typhoons to kill it. Dunno if you're in the UK or not but a trip to Bovington is a great way to spend an afternoon and see some amazing tanks.....much more fun than camera pollsooops almost forgot I've got a picture of a nice Firefly somewhere

Saumur & Bovington, done. Munster & Kubinka, not done yet. But you see, they have a Maus in Kubinka... But both Maus (worked only as prototype) & Jagdtiger were not that "mobile" (Jagdtiger was more used in "fixed" positions and hat terrible combat disadvantages). You cannot compare 88 Jagdtigers with thousands of T-34s, Shermans, ISs, ISUs etc - and this to your point about "superiority". In this case, "production" superiority. Cheers! :) :) :) P. S.: I will stop here (I appreciated the discussion), and wish you all a Happy New Year! :)

Of course you're right, but you want to narrow the camera of the year argument to the strong points of the D800, ignoring the strong points of other cameras.

I think the point you're missing is that small-sensor size and lack of a mirror are FEATURES, they are INTENTIONAL CHOICES made by the manufacturer in the name of size, portability, and expense of the system, as a tradeoff for 1-2 stops of high ISO performance and AF tracking. Olympus could have gone the FF route as easily as any other manufacturer had they thought it made sense.

So your argument has to be that this is a mistake in Olympus's thinking, that everybody should carry around a system that is 4 times as heavy (with lenses) [EDIT: and more than 4 times as expensive, with lenses] on the off-chance that they need good IQ at ISO 25,600. Good luck.

Agree on all points. However the D800 appears to be unforgiving with regards to the blur seen at 100% in many handheld shots - so to negate this, I would assume that for many users, their images have to be viewed/resized down to (say) the size of an OM-D image. I've never owned/used the D800, but comparing DPReview studio shots for both of these cameras, there ain't THAT much difference in images quality, considering the differences in sensor size and price. Given this, the physical size of the OM-D alone makes it a winner.

I suppose that IQ is not everything. Me, I like travelling and photographing. I want small kits that don't take up a lot of real estate and that are comfortable to carry all day long. I can live with "good enough" IQ, which the E-M5 certainly delivers. All around, i'd say it is on par with my Canon 7D. Not bad at all.

But since Dpreview didn't specify the actual evaluation criteria, everyone has their own definition of "best".

I voted for the camera that introduced the most advantages over its predecessors. As an owner of a D700, I don't feel absolutely compelled to upgrade to a D800 for my shooting purposes. But as an owner of an E-PL1, the OM-D is a huge leap forward for the M4/3 format. (Actually, the E-PL5 would fit my uses more, but since the innovations were first introduced in the OM-D, I have to give it credit first).

I think the most significant thing from this poll is the total number of votes that mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have gained. Without any NEX cameras included in the list as well.Given that they have only existed for 4 years it is a sign of the the progress that has been made.

Being in my 50's with pretty bad vision, I had long given up on manually focussing my shots through an optical viewfinder. Perhaps the most pleasant surprise I got when using the Olympus OM-D was that when I twisted my focus ring, the image in the viewfinder was suddenly magnified. I could manually focus again! I can't describe how happy that made me. Perhaps when your vision gets as weak as mine, you'll appreciate what an electronic viewfinder can do for you.

The X-Pro1 looks really sweet, BUT the price is way too high from what I can see.

Also, I'm with 4/3 since 2005, and there is quite an improvement in IQ from the 4/3 DSLRs of then to the E-M5 of today, so maybe m43 catches up to the X-Pro1 in a year or two.

Bottom line is, we are buying these cameras now for features, not IQ, because they all have excellent IQ. So Fuji has to compete in the features arena. It has always been that way. The Nikon F5 did not have better IQ than the EM, just more features. Nowadays you do get a boost in IQ if you spend $2,000 more, but it is so minor (requires pixel-peeping), that it is still trumped by features.

Olympus E-M5 has:- great IBIS- just the right size- touch tilting screen. If only it has swivel like E-3/E-5- Live Time/BULB (cant believe not mentioned yet). Groundbreaking technology for long exposures- one key success is the new Sony sensor. It nullified the gap between 4/3 size and APSC. OM-D would never be as popular with Old 12 MP Pana sensor that Olympus was "forced to use liked it or not" for years.- the availability of m4/3 lens is just right in 2012. just only this year we have a wide selection of HQ prime lenses, and the 2 f2.8 zooms from Panasonic.- the classic look is the icing on top.

Timing is just right for Olympus.

I've been an Oly user for quiet some time, and I have accepted the compromises of (m)4/3. Some image quality for portability. Its just this time the sacrificed IQ is the smallest ever, since I used Oly cameras! I guess this is why FF and APSC users tempted to use OM-D as their daily camera or even ditched their bigger cameras all the way.

I'm surprised at all the love for OMD E-M5. I'm not a fan of any particular brand. For compacts, I own the E-M5, RX-100, X-E1, Nex-5n and just got my Rx1. Let me tell you for every plus (most I agree with) you listed for the OMD I can list minus. Here is some features missing but found in other brands.1. Focus peaking!! (my CV lenses never leaves Sony bodies)2. GRIP! ($300 for extra grip? GTFO)3. Heavy! (Wasn't m 4/3 suppose to be micro?)4. Skin tone (have you seen the fuji skin tone?)5. Inferior Evf resolution/frame rate compared to Sony's 2.4M

Anyways, point is it is not a clear winner of anything. And definitely not groundbreaking? They finally refreshed the 10 year old 12mp Sensor??!! About god dam time!!

I think it is clear only Sony is trying new things. Rx100, jean pocket-able 1" sensor is giving equal if not better results than my Epm-1. Rx-1, full frame compact at $3k with Zeiss f2? Good bye Leica.

1. Focus peaking, hopefully they add in the upcoming firmware.2. Grip, they opted to make it as compact as it can, rather than providing a bigger grip by default like in GH-3 for example.3. As they aimed E-M5 for more advanced users, they provied a wheather sealed and a bit rugged budy. Olympus will come with a lower spec and a higher spec OM-D series. I am very sure the lower spec will have much lighter body than E-M5.4. skin tone, I think is subject to personal preference. Skin tone will also be different result for white skin tone, yellow Asian skin tone, darker Asian skin tone, African skin tone. I admit Fuji has a good skin tone, but I find E-M5 skin tone results are not far behind also.5. as for EVF, agree that it doesn't have the res of Sony. For frame rate, we could use the faster frame rate mode.

I am not saying E-M5 is perfect as no camera is. Just saying that at the moment the balance that E-M5 has right now has drawn quiet a lot of interest from a lot of photographers.

@Burgerwhich: Thom Hogan, at SansMirror.com, just named the E-M5 the "Serious (mirrorless) camera of the year." He compared it directly to the X-E1, Nex 6 and GH3. The E-M5 would have won had he included the X-Pro1 and the NEX-7 in his comparison, as well.

A quote from the article: <<It's the overall evaluation that nets you this sansmirror award, not specific things. All cameras have compromises or even flaws in design. It's the sum of the parts that we're looking at here, not a summation of points assigned to individual traits.>>

@ texinwienIs this some kind of shameless plug for Thomwhoisthisblabla.com?

As for the quote. He first states "it is the over all evaluation (I think he means "feel") is what matters". To which I have to ask, what is overall evaluation if not the summation and evaluation of the specifics? Anyways, he then states "It's ...individual traits." <-- That trail redundancy is just regurgitating his first illogical point.

Now, the only truthful part is " All cameras have compromises...". Un hun, so we find the crust of his BS. Basically the compromises made and flaws within the OMD are things he does not care about. Fine, no problem. It is the best camera for him then. Subjective opinion at best, no more creditable than my reasons for labeling it so so. Difference is I gave you facts regarding its feature, ergonomics and weight. Not sophomoric gibberish. "It's the sum of the parts that we're looking at here, not a summation of points assigned to individual traits" <-HA!

@IrishhAndy I really don't care who your favorite blogger is or who he aspires to be. I'm sorry if your authority figure in photography don't mean squat to me. I like to have arguments stand alone, appealing to authority is a fallacy that i can not remember the name of.

BTW I'm pretty sure the digital camera was invented by Steven something, from Kodak, who graduated from Polytechnic Institute (NY). Not some landscape photographer in Yosemite.

@ texinwienWOW I took the time to educate you and you give me this crap? "You need to get out a little more and educate yourself. You're coming across as mighty ignorant at the moment. maybe that's just how you roll?" <-Ad hominem (A little guilt of it myself right now) Point is, a lot of things might go over your head, no need to call names.

@Burgerwhich"Basically the compromises made and flaws within the OMD are things he does not care about. Fine, no problem. It is the best camera for him then. Subjective opinion at best, no more creditable than my reasons for labeling it so so."

You don't seem to realize that this poll is all about subjective opinions. You're supposed to pick the best camera FOR YOU, not the best camera for everyone.

Nikon D800 is not for everybody. So even if it is the best technology, for me it can't be the camera of the year. You know, the car of the year is never a Ferrari!By the way, I wonder why the last little Nikon J launched in 2012 is not in the selection?It could be easier to compare and to see that with better lenses and a very good image quality, Olympus made a better little interchangeable lens camera with OMD EM5 than Nikon with Nikon J concept!

please how many of you have the sufficient knowldge of the whole cameras so to give a reasonable correct judment? or rather your comments are rising only from your beloved brand and not from a real technical competence?

Well, what qualifies as sufficient knowledge or correct judgement? I have more then 47 years of experience with photography, 13+ of that as a professional doing military, industrial, scientific, biomedical, etc work. I have worked with everything from 8X10 view cameras, down to modern tiny digital sensors. I started with digital in 2001. These days I am a casual photographer, but one with a lot of experience. I don't have any strong brand loyalties, but look for what is the best balance of features and feel for my needs. I don't consider any of my "opinions" to be correct for everyone. Am only concerned with how a camera works with and for me. I also recognize that there is no one "perfect" camera, but different cameras for different purposes and needs. If I could, I would spend my time testing and playing with every major camera out there. But that is not an option at this time...

I am amazed at the trouble some people have understanding the nature of a simple poll. Do you have to be a chef to pick a favourite dish? No. Is it a prerequisite that you have tasted all dishes in the world? No."We want to know which cameras stood out for you."In other words, just pick the one you like best, that you enjoy using the most, or that impressed you the most.

I teach technical and scientific photography to grad students at a major university, and can bore you to tears (as I have done to my poor students) discussing the nuances of photon/electron interactions in various optical sensors. I've also done professional cinematography for about a decade, and was a phototechnician doing lab work before that. Does that qualify me?

I've owned the Canon 5D, Nikon D700 and now own the Olympus OM-D. I wouldn't say it's a better camera than either of the first two but I do find the Oly a much more enjoyable camera to shoot with. I primarily shoot landscapes and portraits and do not feel limited at all with this little jewel.

Similar to my experience. I come from a Canon 7D background, and the E-M5 is definitely a fun camera. The portability factor is awesome. I would not even think of carrying the 7D to family meetings. The E-M5? No problem. You don't look like the dork with a camera, hehe.

One of the more incomprehensible statements I've ever seen on this forum. The Canikon hordes are tearing their hair out, seeing the resale value of their legacy equipment dropping every time someone votes for the better camera (E-M5). Like Porsche, Nikon and Canon are carefully resisting the urge to invent game-changing products. They come out with dumbed-down products to protect their market share. Olympus just invents the best product it can.

re: Porsche, it has a rear engine that gives it inherently bad handling. Their mid-engine car, the Cayman, is purposely not fitted with a limited-slip diff., so as to keep it from outperforming the 911. They've dumbed-down the Cayman to protect their higher-priced 911 sales.

Porsche/Canon/Nikon are dumbing-down their less-expensive products (G1X) to keep them from competing with their more expensive products. Olympus didn't worry about that...they made their E-M5 much, MUCH better than their E-5.

@Steven RoundsI guess you don't shop on Ebay where FF and DX DSLR gear sells faster and at higher prices than any other camera gear. So if you think interest in what you call "legacy" equipment has faded your wrong. But the funnest comment was the EM5 better nonsense.

A better camera CANNOT by definition have worse IQ and the D800 trounces the EM5 for IQ in every way possible. For AF speed and tracking, forget it, the D800 is better in every way.

@ marike6No doubt the D800 is a great camera; IF you need its high MP count and high iso capability. I don't and would even hazard to guess that most don't. To say that "D800 trounces the EM5 for IQ in every way possible. For AF speed and tracking, forget it, the D800 is better in every way." is nothing but pure "fanboy noise" on your part.

Yes, a better camera CAN by definition have a lower IQ or slightly lower focus speed. You are forgetting to factor in the COST of the D800 as a measurable very negative factor when evaluating its other features. How many of you drive Bugatti Veyrons? Yes, the Bugatti's spec-sheet puts it on top, but nobody calls it the "best" car due to its wildly high price. "Best" should be an evaluation applied to a camera with cost included as a very, VERY important factor. That's why I term the E-M5 as the best camera.

This is only true if you regard IQ as the single most important quality of a camera. But how much weight you put on IQ as opposed to, say, ergonomics, build quality, features, portability or cost, is a subjective thing. People have different needs, preferences and priorities. You don't speak for everyone here.

"For AF speed and tracking, forget it, the D800 is better in every way."

Yes, I agree, but if the type of photography you do (eg. landscapes, architecture, still life) doesn't require fast AF or tracking, then it doesn't matter.

This is a poll asking people for their subjective opinion, basically asking you to pick your favourite camera. I chose the E-M5 because it's the best camera for me and my needs. The D800 may very well be the best camera for you and your needs. There is no conflict here, just different people with different priorities.